- The environmental impacts of plastic pollution in oceans and waterways
- This chapter examines the movement and distribution of plastic pollution in Australia’s oceans and waterways and its impacts and toxicological effects on marine and freshwater life and ecosystems. It considers the potential health implications of human exposure to microplastics and on the marine environment. The chapter also considers the effectiveness of community campaigns to reduce plastic pollution and the current gaps in research on the impacts of plastic pollution.
Movement and distribution
4.2Plastics can enter Australia’s oceans and waterways through a variety of sources, such as poor management of waste on land particularly near population-rich river catchments, wastewater, stormwater, road runoff, fishing and aquaculture activities, illegal dumping and floods.
4.3Without proper management plastics can travel long distances in oceans and waterways and via wind, transecting state and territory boundaries and international borders. Cigarette butts are easily transported in stormwater runoff and eventually end up in local streams, waterways and the ocean.
4.4As an example of the scale of plastic pollution in a population dense area, the Yarra Riverkeeper Association stated that ‘the number of litter items and microplastics flowing into Port Phillip Bay from the Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers annually [is] more than 2.5 billion.’
4.5Wastewater treatment plants in Malabar and Cronulla in Sydney release ‘tens of millions to hundreds of billions of microplastics’ into the marine environment each day. Clean Ocean Foundation said that the treatment plant in Malabar is ‘likely to be one of the largest point sources of microplastic pollution in Australia’ as the wastewater receives only one primary treatment, which captures as little as 50percent of microplastics, before being discharged into the ocean. Clean Ocean Foundation added that the annual amount of microfibres that are released from the treatment plant in Malabar could ‘form a thread that could reach the moon and back four times’.
4.6The Committee heard that plastic pollution in Northern Australia largely originates from fishing vessels and overseas land-based sources. The Northern Territory Government stated that most of the plastic pollution in the Gulf of Carpentaria originated from Indonesia (33 per cent), followed by China (29 per cent), Singapore (15 per cent), Australia (13 per cent) and Thailand (5 per cent). The NT Government said that commonly collected items in some of its remote beaches include:
…plastic pieces, lids and tops, ropes, nets and fishing line, commercial fishing remnants, plastic food packaging and rubber footwear and thongs.Other studies have also found large numbers of plastic bottles, personal care bottles and motor oil containers.
4.7The Tangaroa Blue Foundation said that most of the debris collected ‘in remote Australia is carried across ocean currents from other countries before it arrives on our shores.’
4.8Beach Patrol 3280-3284, which operates in Southwest Victoria, reported that through its clean-up campaigns it has found more ‘foreign-labelled drink bottles and food packaging’ than Australian-branded litter, which it believes originates from international ships.
4.9The Australian Institute of Marine Science said that there is not currently any guidance through Australia’s environmental regulations for the ‘specific assessment of microplastic impacts and risk in the marine environment’. It suggested that guidelines are developed to:
…improve the ability of State, Territory, and Commonwealth regulators to make transparent and informed decisions about activities that generate microplastics and empower users of marine resources to better manage their microplastic discharges.
Impacts on marine and freshwater life and ecosystems
4.10The Committee heard that there are various ways in which marine and freshwater life are harmed by plastic pollution, such as entanglement, suffocation, ingestion, toxicological effects, and habitat damage. The Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) said that every year, ‘up to 100,000 marine animals and 1 million seabirds are killed by plastic globally…with turtles, whales and seabirds some of the most commonly affected species.’ CSIRO added that ‘it can take just one piece of plastic to kill a turtle’.
4.11Ghost net entanglement is one of the most common forms of injury to marine wildlife. In freshwater systems, wildlife are entangled in plastic bags, packing straps, ropes, clothing gear, and six-pack rings. CSIRO said that the items that were responsible for the highest mortality rate of animals were flexible plastic items which causes gastric obstructions, as well as sharp pieces of plastic which can pierce the gut wall of animals and cause infection and death.
4.12No Balloon Release Australia noted that as balloons are not biodegradable and cannot be recycled, they can kill or injure wildlife such as turtles, shearwaters, and petrels that ‘mistake balloons as food, which then blocks their digestive tract. They die slow deaths from starvation.’ Further, the ribbons and hard plastic balloon clips that travel with the balloons cause harm to wildlife such as penguins, platypus and birds through entanglement that prevents their flight and feeding, cause choking and eventually causing death from starvation or damage to internal organs.
4.13Similarly, the Australian Wildlife Society stated that ring-shaped items such as ‘plastic rings, rubber bands, hair ties, loops of facemasks, and plastic dome-shaped lids’ cause significant harm to aquatic wildlife. These items can wrap around their beak or muzzle, preventing them from eating and tangle their feet or wings and limit their movement. The Australian Wildlife Society added that if young animals become trapped while they grow, the items can cut into their flesh, sometimes amputating limbs, or killing the animal.
4.14Microplastics are more likely to come into contact with a greater variety of species as they get smaller over time. When microplastics are ingested by filter-feeding or planktivorous animals, they can end up propagating food webs as those animals are then eaten by predators, posing an ecotoxicological risk.
4.15As well as the direct impact of plastic pollution on wildlife, there is a growing body of research showing impacts on broader ecosystems and wildlife habitats such as coral reefs and mangroves. Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre said that its sampling in Adelaide found that estuaries and wetlands close to urbanised areas have ‘substantially higher microplastic loads than open coast locations’. It said that wetland ecosystems require urgent attention due to the pollution, and added that:
Wetlands provide a natural filtration system capable of trapping microplastics in sediment and preventing them from entering aquatic ecosystems. However, in doing so, their ability to perform essential biological services such as nutrient cycling and water purification is dwindling. It is critical to note that wetland ecosystems like Barker Inlet provide significant habitat for birds, including as breeding and nursery areas, in addition to a range of fish and invertebrates.
Toxicological effects of microplastics
4.16Chemicals are added to plastics to give them a range of properties, such as flexibility, elasticity, rigidity, UV stability, flame resistance and colouring. Many of the chemicals are potentially toxic or endocrine disruptors (that mimic or interfere with hormones), and some ‘meet the definition of being persistent organic pollutants that are subject to international action’.
4.17The Minderoo Foundation and Yarra Riverkeeper Association said that these chemicals are weakly bound and can leak from the plastics both during use and when discarded and can persist in the global environment for decades. As microplastics have now been found in all marine environments, these chemicals have the potential to cause toxicological effects to marine and freshwater wildlife. For example, the Yarra Riverkeeper Association said that ingestion of microplastics by marine animals ‘has been linked with a wide range of sub-lethal effects including reduced reproduction, reduced growth of individuals and reduced fitness.’
4.18No More Butts said that each cigarette butt contains 7,000 chemicals such as nicotine, arsenic and heavy metals, and can contaminate up to 40 litres of water, capable of ‘killing half of the fish present in a one-litre bucket’. Similarly, Ms Kylie Morphett, Mr David Sellars and Associate Professor Coral Gartner said that cigarette filters are toxic to seaworms and fish and could affect their DNA or reduce their growth.
4.19In 2015, the European Union banned flame retardant from being used in polystyrene building insulation as ‘the health and environmental hazards associated with HBCD [hexabromocyclododecane] were significant’. While this chemical is not manufactured in Australia, the Yarra Riverkeeper Association said that it is imported in Expanded Polystyrene resin and is ‘more harmful than other types of plastic because it is composed of relatively hazardous chemicals’. It added that when leaked into the environment, this chemical can impact feeding behaviour, cause weight loss and affect reproduction in invertebrate species.
4.20The Australian Institute of Marine Science raised however, that direct toxicity of microplastics to marine organisms is ‘unlikely at current environmental exposure concentrations’ and are ‘a relatively minor route of exposure’. It warned that:
Only recently have microplastic risks been considered and assessed as a multiple-stressor, whereby the organism is exposed to both the physical (particle) and chemical (additive) components together or to microplastics in combination with other environmental stressors such as seawater temperature or habitat degradation.
Ghost nets
4.21Submitters expressed concern about the amount and impact of abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear in the ocean, known as ‘ghost nets’ or ‘ghost gear’, with Northern Australia having ‘one of the highest densities of ghost nets…in the world’. Ghost nets can range from small pieces to kilometres in length, can weigh many tonnes and are often difficult to recover. Every year, the amount of ghost nets that are lost could wrap around the Earth 18 times.
4.22Ghost nets are estimated to make up about 10 per cent of all plastic in the ocean. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (the Department) said that, annually, this is comprised of:
…almost 3,000 km of gillnets, over 75,000 km of purse seine nets, over 200 km of trawl nets, almost 750,000 km of longline mainlines, nearly 14 billion longline hooks and over 25 million pots and traps...
4.23The AMCS reported that the currents and conditions in the Arafura and Timor Seas and the Torres Strait make the Gulf of Carpentaria (a sea off the northern coast of Australia) a ‘global ghost net and marine debris hotspot’, affecting six of the seven threatened marine turtle species. It added that despite efforts to manage the ghost nets, the overall number identified through aerial surveys of the Gulf of Carpentaria increased between 2004 and 2020.
4.24The Department stated that in response to this issue, the Australian Government commenced a Ghost Nets Initiative in 2020 with $14.8 million of funding over four years to June 2024. The initiative will examine the feasibility of developing recycling and remanufacturing pathways for marine debris including ghost nets in the Gulf of Carpentaria and funds the Indigenous Ranger Coastal clean-up project.
Impact on First Nations
4.25The Committee heard evidence of the disproportionate impact of plastic pollution in the coastlines and remote areas of northern Australia.
4.26Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation, established by Yolngu landowners in Northeast Arnhem Land, made a submission to the inquiry ‘on behalf of the Traditional Owners and as the Indigenous Ranger Organisation who are tasked with caring for our Land and Sea Country.’ In its submission, Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation explained the connection that Yolngu people had to Land and Sea Country, where they often say they ‘come from’ the land or that they ‘are the land’.
4.27Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation explained that in 2018 there was a significant increase in marine debris and ghost nets being washed up on remote beaches. To manage the debris and protect the land, a volunteer group was established in 2019 and has cleared over 20 tonnes of marine debris and ghost nets annually. Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation noted that a clean-up with Sea Shepherd removed a ‘shocking’ amount of waste:
In October 2022, over 10 days, 11 volunteers from Sea Shepherd removed a shocking 10-tonnes of trash across just 4.5km of remote beach, and the returning volunteers said it was the worst they had ever seen. Djulpan is a culturally significant place to the Yolngu people. The beach is closed to the general public, so the debris on Djulpan is not from those living nearby, but from across the world.
4.28Minderoo Foundation noted that the environmental and human health impacts of plastic pollution could have a disproportionate effect in remote and regional communities and emphasised the importance of the ‘Australian Government actively listening to First Nations voices and engaging with Indigenous-led solutions in addressing the impacts of plastic pollution’.
4.29Indigenous Rangers were acknowledged for their work in cleaning up marine debris and plastic. AMCS noted that Indigenous ranger groups had expressed frustration about funding support from the government for the resources and workforce to:
…retrieve ghost nets and plastic debris from very remote areas where conditions are harsh and nets are hard to access or buried deep in sand and mangroves, making retrieval difficult.
4.30The NT Government praised the clean-up work being completed by Indigenous Rangers but acknowledged that cleaning the coastlines is not the answer and that ‘the issue is too large for ranger groups alone’.
Impact on human health
4.31The impact of plastic pollution on human health is still uncertain and in early stages. However, stakeholders discussed the potential health implications of the consumption, inhalation and skin contact with plastics and their chemical additives.
4.32Like wildlife, human exposure to microplastics can occur through the contamination of food, water and air.Engineers Australia said it is estimated that humans ingest ‘between 0.1-5 g of microplastics weekly through various exposure pathways’. In 2022, researchers found that plastic particles from the environment can end up in the human bloodstream and microplastics have been found in human faeces.
4.33The Australian Rivers Institute said that more than 50 per cent of human exposure to microplastics is through the air, with the most dominant type of airborne microplastics being microfibres originating from textiles made from synthetic fibres, such as rugs, chairs and clothing, and clothes dryers.
4.34Human exposure to microplastics may cause cytotoxicity, neurotoxicity, lung diseases and cardio issues. The Australian Rivers Institute noted studies have suggested that exposure to microplastics can impact ‘gut microbiota and chronic cellular inflammation’ and ‘microplastic particles smaller than 1 μm may even be able to penetrate inside human cells, where they may cause oxidative stress and interfere with proper cellular function’.
4.35The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) noted, however, that consumption of microplastics through contaminated seafood is generally low. This is because, by global comparison ‘Australian seafood species have low abundances of microplastic’ and common practice for much of the seafood in Australia is to remove the gastro-intestinal tract before consumption, thereby further reducing risk. The FRDC added that:
…the likelihood of consuming microplastic from the surrounding environment (e.g. shedding from clothes, carpets and cooking equipment) is much higher than consuming plastic via seafood. For seafood that is eaten whole (e.g. shellfish), the risk is slightly higher. Of microplastics that are ingested, 90% or more are likely to be excreted with faeces.
4.36Flinders University, the Yarra Riverkeeper Association, the FRDC and Engineers Australia recommended that research be funded as a priority to better understand the potential risks and effects of microplastic pollution, and any absorbed toxins on human health. Flinders University added that a risk assessment for microplastic pollution to human and environmental health should be developed. It said that Australia could draw on the development of microplastic risk assessments in drinking water and the environment in the state of California in the United States of America.
4.37The Australian Rivers Institute recommended that clothes dryers should have a microfibre filter to reduce the potential 120 million microfibres being released per year into the home environment. Further, it recommended that a ‘public engagement campaign be developed to raise awareness of the threat associated with microplastics and microfibres to our environment and human health’.
4.38Stakeholders to the inquiry also expressed concern about how plastic pollution disproportionately affects some remote locations that do not have the infrastructure or funding to manage such pollution. Box 4.1 provides an overview of the impact of plastic pollution on Australia’s external Indian Ocean Territories.
Box 4.1 Impact of plastic pollution on the Indian Ocean Territories Tonnes of foreign plastic pollution wash up on Australia’s Indian Ocean Territories (IOT) of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands weekly, influenced by ocean circulation and wind. According to the Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands, their once pristine natural environment ‘has been transformed into a plastic pollution dumping ground that may very well never recover to its original state.’ A recent assessment of the plastic pollution on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands found ‘a minimum of 238 tonnes of plastic debris’ washed ashore on the island group, with 100 per cent of the debris originating from river sources in the Southern Hemisphere Indian Ocean, specifically from Indonesia. The Shire of Christmas Island Fisheries Management Committee (FMC) said that no other location in Australia is so drastically impacted from foreign plastic pollution because Christmas Island is only 430km away from Java, Indonesia and its population of 145 million people. Plastic pollution significantly impacts the IOTs’ marine wildlife, habitats, human subsistence, and tourism, which is a key industry on the islands. The IOTs are home to a diverse but fragile marine ecosystem all impacted by nano and microplastic that is absorbed or ingested. The Shire of Christmas Island said that plastic pollution washed up on its beaches affects ‘the year round nesting of green turtles, while ocean seabirds pick up plastic refuse, such as straws, instead of twigs to make nests.’ For island societies, fishing forms a large part of the residents’ diet, serving as a major source of protein that would otherwise be sourced from animals transported by air freight from the mainland. The Shire of Christmas Island FMC said that microplastics in fish can ‘lead to poorer health outcomes for residents in the long term’. The Shire of Christmas Island FMC recommended that the Australian Government consider funding research into microplastics in fish. The Committee heard that the IOTs are struggling to manage and cleanup the plastic pollution due to restricted capacity to raise enough revenue and its dependence on the Department for income. The Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands said that as a result, the islands are heavily reliant on community organisations such as Sea Shepherd Australia and the Tangaroa Blue Foundation to hold annual clean up campaigns. As an example, Tangaroa Blue's Biggest Beach Clean-up in 2022 removed over 600kg of plastic pollution on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. One month later, an annual clean-up campaign hosted by Sea Shepherd Australia collected over eight tonnes of marine debris from the beaches, a significant proportion of which was plastic pollution. It added that immediately after each clean-up campaign, every new high tide brings more pollution. Similarly, Christmas Island holds annual events and 46 per cent of the 9,985kg of marine debris collected over ten years was plastic. The IOTs do not currently have local recycling facilities for plastic and the export of waste to the mainland is ‘not economically viable and carries biosecurity risks.’ Therefore, the plastic recovered from Christmas Island are sent to landfill which continues to affect its ‘unique ecological biodiversity’. In the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, there is no further capacity in landfill, thus all plastic debris collected, and plastic waste produced by the community and local businesses, are open burnt. Mr Michael Dicks, a Sea Shepherd Marine Debris Team volunteer, said that the burning of plastic is ‘not a viable and sustainable option’ and ‘the smell and black smoke from these open pits drifting across the islands is appalling’. Submitters said that there is an urgent need for recycling equipment and recommended funding of ‘infrastructure that is required to dispose of plastic pollution and other marine debris’ as a priority. |
Microplastics in the National Plastics Plan
4.39Many stakeholders expressed concern about how easy it is for microplastics to enter the marine environment through stormwater drains and suggested that the NPP includes a definition of microplastics so that they can be specifically regulated in Australia.
4.40Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre raised that ‘microplastics are strikingly underrepresented’ in the NPP and emphasised that currently, ‘microplastics are not classified as litter or specifically regulated in Australia’. They said that this ‘substantially undermines the capacity for them to be regulated and be perceived by the public as a significant pollutant’.
4.41Boomerang Alliance and Total Environment Centre said that microplastics lack a comprehensive definition in the NPP, ‘having been described as “very small pieces of plastic that remain when large pieces of plastic break down.”’ It added that:
Without providing sizing parameters, microplastics continue to be categorised alongside other debris and are therefore subject to inadequate, or no mitigation measures. Traditional measures like Gross Pollutant Traps for example, are very effective in capturing macro litter though often are too porous to prevent particles below 5mm in length from entering waterways. This ambiguous description additionally omits primary microplastics such as resin pellets which has implications for industry regulation.
Community campaigns to reduce plastic pollution
4.42As well as efforts to clean up the beaches in the IOTs, submitters to the inquiry highlighted locally driven efforts across Australia to address plastic pollution in oceans and waterways, through various not-for-profit community campaigns and non-government organisations.
4.43Flinders University noted that ‘community campaigns can be highly effective in raising awareness, promoting behavioural change, and reducing plastic pollution’ as they ‘give people a sense of community, and often lead to greater awareness, education, behaviour change, and advocacy’. Similarly, Plastic Free Foundation said that Australia has some of the ‘most impactful community campaigns in the world’.
4.44Clean Up Australia said that more than 20 million Australians have participated in its activities and events over the past three decades to avert new rubbish while eliminating existing waste. It reported that its volunteers dedicated more than 38million hours to the removal of substantial amounts of debris. No More Butts praised Clean Up Australia, and said that:
The work that Clean Up Australia continues to do to raise awareness and conduct clean up events year round also has a positive impact on the amount of pollution recovered before it enters our waterways.
4.45In addition, the AMCS reported that Australian awareness regarding ocean pollution was quite high, with ocean plastics ranking among the top environmental concerns. The AMCS also noted the success of environmental campaigns organised by non-government organisations, including Plastic Free Places, Plastic Free July and Take Three for the Sea, in effectively raising awareness and promoting actions to reduce plastic footprints and litter.
4.46Other community campaigns highlighted by stakeholders included:
- A network of Indigenous Sea Rangers removed approximately 13,000 ghost nets across 31 communities.
- In partnership with Clean Up Australia and the Cairns Regional Council, No More Butts held a ‘Big Cigarette Butt Hunt’ in September 2022 which saved ‘thousands of filters and several kilograms of plastic pollution from entering the waterways, including the Great Barrier Reef’.
- Plastic Free July, a campaign run by Plastic Free Foundation, had 140 million participants globally (including 3.6 million Australians). In Australia in 2022, participants reduced landfill waste by 52 million kg, recyclable waste by 29 million kg and plastic consumption by 7.6 million kg.
- Evidence to the inquiry also revealed challenges regarding the sustainability of such initiatives, with there being support for strengthened collaboration between industry, academia, and governments to sustain long-term community engagement in reducing pollution.
- The FRDC agreed that community-led action was crucial for removing accumulated rubbish but argued that these initiatives were not ‘independently sufficient to manage plastic pollution.’ It called for stronger preventative strategies to stop the initial entry of plastics into the environment, as well as strengthened regulatory support to enforce best practices. Similarly, the Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc highlighted that ‘plastic pollution is best stopped at the source, rather than intervention strategies focusing on pollution after it has already reached the marine and terrestrial environment’.
- Faced with the overwhelming volume of cigarette butts, No More Butts reported that some clean up groups have ceased their collection efforts to shift their focus to cataloguing more prominent items, such as single-use plastics and endorsing container deposit schemes. No More Butts said that whilst there has been action regarding the health impacts of smoking, ‘there has yet to be a national awareness campaign around the environmental impact of cigarette butts as a form of plastic pollution.’
- Engineers Australia stated that connecting community initiatives with academic or industry-based research would drive effective strategies to monitor and control plastic pollution. Noting citizen science initiatives and community groups, including the Australian Microplastic Assessment Project (AUSMAP), the Beach Patrol Litter Stopper and Operation Clean Sweep, Engineers Australia said that this would ensure ‘high quality and effective community-based plastic pollution and study methods, as well as potential funding opportunities.’
- The University of Adelaide suggested that the continuation and expansion of outreach programs to include communities less aware of plastic risks could ‘inspire and drive positive change.’
- Flinders University raised that targeted education campaigns can be important in addressing and reducing plastic pollution by fostering behavioural change and countering misinformation. The effectiveness of education campaigns is discussed in Chapter 3.
Lack of national data on the scale and impacts of plastic pollution
4.53The Committee heard that further research and tracking is required to better understand how plastic ends up in Australia’s oceans and waterways, its impacts on marine life and freshwater ecosystems, and potential impacts on human health.
4.54The Australian Academy of Science said that currently, ‘data on the scale and movement of plastic pollution is fragmented’. It added that addressing plastic pollution ‘requires a sustained multidisciplinary research agenda’ that includes chemists who can identify plastics that will be a long-term problem, and types of plastic that could break down into non-harmful molecular components.
4.55Similarly, FRDC said that insufficient data limits understanding of the impacts of micro and macroplastics on the fishing and aquaculture sectors, and that there is a need for further funding into research and development, and measures to address such impacts.
4.56Currently data on the scale of plastic pollution is collected and tracked by non-government organisations and not-for-profit organisations that hold community cleanups. Clean Up Australia said that it tracks and identifies trends in the types of litter items that end up in the environment using data from its 20 million volunteers who remove rubbish across Australia.
4.57Tangaroa Blue Foundation collects data on marine debris through its ‘on-ground network of volunteers, communities, organisations, and agencies around the country’ which are logged in its Australian Marine Debris Imitative (AMDI). It said that ‘the AMDI Database is the largest database of marine debris in the southern hemisphere with more than 22 million items, 84 per cent of which are plastic, recorded at more than 4,400 clean-up sites since 2004’.
4.58AUSMAP, a program in the Total Environment Centre, told the Committee that it has ‘the largest database of microplastics in Australia, if not the world’ that is publicly available and free to use on its website.
4.59Flinders University recommended long-term monitoring of plastic pollution to establish a baseline database that can be used ‘to assess the efficacy of any regulations aimed at reducing microplastic pollution in waterways’. It added that further research priorities should include:
…standardising the environmental assessment methods of plastic pollution globally, evaluating potential human health risks from plastic pollutants, and ensuring open access to research for collaboration and knowledge sharing, which should facilitate the utilisation of scientifically sound methodologies in citizen-science programs. Determining baseline pollution levels is essential and enables effective policy evaluation and resource allocation for clean-up efforts. Furthermore, it facilitates the replication of environmental conditions in laboratory studies that assess the effects of microplastic contaminants on aquatic organisms and environments.
4.60The AMCS recommended that a data division is established within the Department, tasked with ‘the oversight of data on Australia’s plastic pollution and waste management’, with data made available biennially. Similarly, Engineers Australia stated that research and development should be significantly ramped up in methods that ‘build and share knowledge; particularly on human health and ecosystem risks’ and that safely remove plastics from ecosystems.
4.61The University of Adelaide urged the Australian Government to sustain long-term community engagement by addressing gaps in understanding about the effects of microplastics in the marine environment across diverse demographics, especially within the fishing community.
4.62The Department said that it has partnered with CSIRO to develop a National Plastic Pollution Portal, with an expected launch by December 2025, to display data collected on plastic pollution by governments, industry, scientists and the non-government sector. The Department said that this will allow it to:
…identify hotspots and see changes in plastic pollution by location and over time. This will enable more targeted clean-up activities and inform policies to tackle the worst types of plastic pollution. It will also help monitor the success of our efforts to reduce plastic pollution.
Committee Comment
4.63Microplastics, microfibres and macroplastics cause serious harm to marine and freshwater life and ecosystems. Organisms can experience entanglement, suffocation, ingestion and damage to their habitat. Chemical additives to plastics also have the potential to cause toxicity, disrupt hormones, reduce reproduction and growth, and reduce fitness in marine life.
4.64While still limited, there is a growing body of research finding that plastics also have the potential to harm humans. Microplastics and microfibres can already be found in our water and food and may carry harmful chemicals and toxins. Ingestion of these particles raises concerns about potential health risks such as inflammation and toxicity.
4.65Mitigating this pollution is critical to preserving the health and biodiversity of Australia’s oceans and waterways. The Committee considers that Australia needs a nationally coordinated and publicly accessible database on the sources, movement, distribution, prevalence and impacts of plastic pollution in urban, regional, and remote waterways and marine environments.
4.66The Committee would like to recognise the valuable efforts of not-for-profit community organisations in gathering and analysing information on plastic pollution, particularly those that gather data through community cleanups. Currently, this data is fragmented and collected by various organisations both locally and nationally but there is no national coordination.
4.67The Committee acknowledges that the Department is developing a National Plastic Pollution Portal, with the aim to launch in December 2025. The Portal should feature a nationally coordinated database that is publicly accessible and can be contributed to by stakeholders such as not-for-profit cleanup organisations that collect data on the ground. The Portal should contain research on the impact of plastic pollution in urban, regional, remote waterways and marine environments, and the toxicity of microplastics to marine organisms.
4.68The impact of plastic pollution on human health through ingestion, inhalation and skin contact is currently limited and requires further investigation. The Committee considers that the Australian Government should commission research to better understand the potential risks and effects of microplastic pollution, and any absorbed toxins on human health. The research should also consider the impacts of the consumption of microplastics through contaminated seafood.
4.69The Committee recommends that the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water commission comprehensive research to determine the impacts of microplastic ingestion, inhalation and skin contact on human health, including any absorbed toxins.
The initial research should be made publicly available by July 2026 through the Australian Government’s National Plastic Pollution Portal.
4.70The Committee is concerned about the ease of which microplastics can enter the marine environment through stormwater drains. Gross pollutant traps installed around Australia are designed to capture larger litter items but are not effective in stopping microplastics. Currently, Australia is a member to the international Operation Clean Sweep, but it is a voluntary program meaning that resin suppliers, manufacturers and recyclers are not prioritising their involvement.
4.71In this regard, the Committee considers that a national microplastic reduction strategy should be developed by the Australian Government to prioritise investigation of how microplastics can be captured and removed from stormwater systems, such as through filters. The strategy should be considered at the Environment Ministers Meeting and developed as a priority.
4.72The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Environment Ministers Meeting, set as a priority a national microplastic reduction strategy. The strategy should consider strengthening regulation and monitoring of stormwater filters to stop microplastics from entering the marine environment.
4.73The national microplastic reduction strategy should be in place by December 2025.
4.74The reduction of plastic pollution needs to be a global effort, given the impact of plastic pollution that is carried across ocean currents onto Australia’s shores from both domestic and foreign sources.
4.75The Committee considers that the Australian Government needs to share and seek data and information from its global partners, particularly neighbouring countries in Asia, to combat and reduce plastic pollution. The Committee acknowledges that the Australian Government also has a role to play in international negotiations to reduce the plastic pollution that is negatively impacting our regional and remote communities, marine species, wildlife and habitats.
4.76The Committee recommends that Australian Government, through the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the Australian Research Council, prioritise partnerships between Australian and overseas research institutions to collaborate on research on the reduction of plastic pollution.
4.77The Committee is concerned about the disproportionate effect of plastic pollution on some of the most remote areas of Australia, and on the communities that live in those areas. The Committee would like to acknowledge the invitation of the Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation, one of the groups affected by this, to take evidence on country, and apologises that the Committee was not able to take up this invitation.
4.78The level of plastic pollution in these remote areas means that small communities that are not responsible for generating the plastic pollution are having to manage enormous quantities with little to no resources, support or infrastructure. Due to a lack of any other options, plastic pollution collected through community campaigns or through the Indigenous Ranger Program are either sent to landfill or burnt, which further impacts the environment and residents’ health, and may impact tourism.
4.79The Committee acknowledges the excellent work of Indigenous rangers and community organisations such as Sea Shepherd, but it is clear from the scale of the problem that more support and resources are required.
4.80Therefore, the Committee sees an urgent need for recycling equipment and additional funding to assist in managing and recycling marine debris to avoid it being placed in local landfills.
4.81In addition to further funding, the Committee considers that First Nations living in remote and regional communities must be included in any consultation on strategies to address plastic pollution and be actively involved in the development of any solutions affecting their communities.
4.82The Committee recommends that the National Indigenous Australians Agency increase the funding for the Indigenous Rangers Program to ensure that Indigenous Ranger groups from remote areas subject to high plastic pollution are appropriately supported to undertake their work.
4.83The Committee recommends that the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water ensure that First Nations, particularly those living in remote and regional communities, are included and facilitated in any consultation on strategies to address plastic pollution and actively involved in the development of any targeted solutions.
4.84The Committee acknowledges that released balloons of all types have the potential to cause significant harm to wildlife. The Committee considers that given the potential for harm from what is perceived by those involved to be a joyous or significant event, consideration should be given to the ongoing impacts of the release of balloons on the environment. Some states, such as New South Wales, have already made changes to legislation to consider the release of balloons as littering with penalties applying.
4.85The Committee believes that it would be valuable for the Environment Ministers Meeting group to consider whether there should be harmonisation of arrangements for balloon releases across the states and territories.
4.86The Committee recommends that the harmonisation of balloon release arrangements be added as an agenda item to an upcoming Environment Ministers Meeting in 2024.